Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Preeti Birla - Task 5 - Rights of Accused Under The Indian Criminal Law System
Preeti Birla - Task 5 - Rights of Accused Under The Indian Criminal Law System
Introduction
The Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental rights of every human being, such as
"the right to life and personal liberty", "the right to live with dignity" and so on. In addition to
this, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for universal protection of
fundamental human rights.
Indian law recognizes the rights of anyone who is arrested, tried or convicted and imprisoned.
A person does not lose his/her basic human and fundamental rights because a principle of our
criminal justice system states that a person is presumed innocent until they are convicted, and
even after they are convicted they are allowed have certain rights. Protections granted to
accused/arrested persons under various Indian laws such as Constitution, CrPC and CPC.
Since the Indian constitution is combined with democracy and the rule of law, the concept of
free and fair trial is a constitutional promise, and the fundamental principles of criminal law
revolve around natural justice, where even the accused or guilty are treated humanely. The
country's laws require the independence of the prosecution and to prove the defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
The accused was also granted certain rights, the most basic of which are enshrined in the
Indian constitution. Defendants have certain rights in any investigation; the alleged offense is
investigated or tried and shall be protected from arbitrary or unlawful arrest.
According to the constitution, the basic principle of our constitution is to allow hundreds of
people to go unpunished, but never to punish the innocent. Access to fair representation in
criminal proceedings is an aspect of the right to equality (Article. 14).
In Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan (1981), the court held that the Indian
constitution, evidence, and procedure act contained legal protection of the rights of the
accused during trial and protection of his human dignity and provided him with justice of the
court, the benefits of a fair and impartial trial. This article discusses the rights of Indian
defendants at arrest, search and seizure, during trial and after conviction. The Indian legal
system follows the principle of "innocence until proven guilty". Until the accused is proven
guilty, the court should consider the accused innocent. If the accused is arrested, his rights
shall not be taken away as detailed below.
There are different laws that provide different rights for people accused of crimes. The need
for these rights accompanies the progress of the phases of criminal matters, namely pre-trial
phase rights, trial phase rights and post-trial phase rights. These rights are as follows:
Against Self-Incrimination
In criminal law, everyone involved in a criminal proceeding provides a
statement stating the facts of the case. The defendant also provides this
statement and he/she is obligated to answer every question the police ask
him/her in relation to the ongoing case, but in providing answers to the
questions, the defendant has the right not to answer those questions that may
lead to his/her guilt the problem. This right is known as the right against self-
incrimination under Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1973 and
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
Case- in the case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), the Supreme
Court complied with the following points-
It is a right relating to a person “accused of a crime”.
It is a protection against being “forced to be a witness”
It is a protection against such testifying against him protections
concerning coercion “against himself.”
Case- in Natarajan v. State (2005), the supreme court stated that “a person
who has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and has
been convicted or acquitted, shall not be tried again for the same offence or for
any other offence for which he may be charged differently under Section
221(1), or he may have been convicted under Section 221(2) thereof.
Right to bail
In criminal law, a defendant arrested for a crime is entitled to bail and release
from judicial custody unless he/she is charged with a non-bailable crime.
However, even in the latter case, bail can be granted. Any person who is
arrested without a warrant and is accused of a bailable offence has to be
informed by the police officer that he is entitled to be released on bail on
payment of the surety amount.
Case-
in Sukh das v. United Territories of Arunachal Pradesh (1986), the
Supreme Court held that if there is no way for the accused to retain a lawyer to
facilitate a free and fair trial in court without prejudice to the principles of
natural justice.
In Sheela Barse v. The state of Maharashtra (1987), the supreme court held
that whenever a person is arrested by the police and brought to a police
custody, the police will immediately imply the fact that such an arrest is sent
to the nearest the legal aid board, which will take immediate measures to
provide legal aid to the arrested person at state expense, provided that he is
willing to receive such legal aid.
In Khatri v. Bihar (1981) case, the Supreme Court held that the state is
constitutionally empowered and obliged to provide free legal aid to the poor
and needy in order to uphold their fundamental human rights and to achieve
natural justice. Free laws should be provided not only at the beginning of the
trial, but also when the accused is brought before the magistrate for the first
time, when the accused is arrested. Furthermore, the court held that it would
be useless to provide a defendant with free legal aid if the authorities did not
inform the defendant of his rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that
magistrates and courts have a duty to inform the poor that he is entitled to free
legal aid from the state.
Case-In, D.K. Basu v West Bengal, in this case, the Supreme Court issued
guidelines requiring mandatory compliance in all cases of arrest or detention,
including that arresting authorities should have accurate, visible and clear
identification and their Name tags with their names, and memos signed by
those arrested and their families. The family or friends of anyone nominated
by the arrestee must be informed of the defendant's arrest, and the arrestee
may be allowed to see his lawyer during the interrogation, but not entitled to
be present throughout the interrogation.
Right to cross-examination
In a criminal trial, there is a stage where both parties appear in court and
question each other's witnesses. This stage is called the Chief Exam and the
Cross Exam. The accused has the right to be cross-examined by the
Prosecutor's Committee to prove his/her innocence.
Case -In Nandini Sathpathy v P.L. Dani, it was held that no one can
compel a statement from the accused and the accused has the right to remain
silent during the trial (investigation).
Conclusion
Indian law is structured such that even if an accused person is found guilty by a trial
court, he/she should not claim that they have not been properly heard and given an
equal opportunity to appear in court. In criminal matters, defendants have equal
rights to protect them from unlawful investigation and judicial proceedings. Both the
Constitution of India and the Code of Criminal Procedure provide some rights for all
those involved in criminal proceedings.
In the course of the justice system, defendants have many opportunities to prove
their innocence, stay informed about ongoing criminal proceedings, and refrain from
making any coercive statements themselves that could lead to self-incrimination.